Population size isn't a good way of measuring activity - population growth would be a more accurate indicator to gauge activity. Melbourne's annual population growth has been averaging close to 75000 people over the past few years (higher than the 60000 average over the decade to 2010), whereas Adelaide is growing at a rate somewhere closer to 15000 a year. Even the growth rate doesn't highlight much, because the growth rates in each city's inner city differs from the growth rate of the metropolitan area.

And looking at architecture jobs isn't a good measure either, because architects are only one of many parties involved in new developments - think engineers, project managers, financiers and others as well.

AG wrote:Population size isn't a good way of measuring activity - population growth would be a more accurate indicator to gauge activity. Melbourne's annual population growth has been averaging close to 75000 people over the past few years (higher than the 60000 average over the decade to 2010), whereas Adelaide is growing at a rate somewhere closer to 15000 a year. Even the growth rate doesn't highlight much, because the growth rates in each city's inner city differs from the growth rate of the metropolitan area.

And looking at architecture jobs isn't a good measure either, because architects are only one of many parties involved in new developments - think engineers, project managers, financiers and others as well.

The first people to lose their jobs in the construction industry before a recession hits are the Architects and vice-versa. I was comparing architecture jobs to gauge what new work is in the pipeline and I think that is a sound indicator. I don't think you understand the construction process if your comparing engineers and architects.

I disagree with your theory contractor sorry. As a lot of architecture and design work is not actually completed in the city where it is to be built. For example there are firms in Adelaide doing work for China but that does not reflect the state of our economy by having those jobs here. I dare say with Melbourne being almost a world city a lot of international projects are designed there....

Ben wrote:I disagree with your theory contractor sorry. As a lot of architecture and design work is not actually completed in the city where it is to be built. For example there are firms in Adelaide doing work for China but that does not reflect the state of our economy by having those jobs here. I dare say with Melbourne being almost a world city a lot of international projects are designed there....

This is true. One of the engineering consulting firms I was working for also falls into this category. Jobs in each city are often clustered by areas of expertise within that company (for example: aviation) rather than where the work is. I know one of the other major consulting groups employs the majority of its chemical engineers in its Melbourne office even though most of its work is interstate and it has offices nationally.

contractor wrote:Good point Ben and I know of an Architectural firm in Adelaide doing work for Melbourne.

I'm not sure how the argument of chemical engineers relates to construction though AG.

Chemical engineers definitely have input into quite a number of construction projects - just not the glitzy glamorous projects that many people think of. I've worked with a few from a structural engineering point of view.

Interesting article on housing density, house/apartment size (and inadequacies) in Melbourne, affordability, comparisons to some other cities and a report laying blame on policies such as negative gearing etc which favour investors.

Melbourne’s housing density more extreme than Hong Kong, council says

Housing density in Melbourne has reached "extreme" levels unheard of even in cities such as Hong Kong, New York and London, a council survey has revealed.

In a grim report card on new housing in the city, Melbourne city council's draft housing policy has found that dwellings in new developments are too small, lack adequate natural light, ventilation and privacy, and are pricing out poor and middle-class families.

Some new developments had densities greater than 5,000 dwellings per hectare, up to four times the legal limit in Sydney, New York and Hong Kong, and ten times what is permitted in London.

About four in ten of Melbourne's newest one-bedroom apartments were smaller than the minimum size allowed in Sydney, Adelaide and London, the council found.

Existing density controls in the city centre are calculated by blocks rather than individual developments, making the guidelines impossible to enforce, it said.

The council pinned the blame for shrinking apartment sizes on tax structures that favour investors, who bought 85% of new apartments, over the interests of renters.

A 2013 report by the Grattan Institute found that negative gearing rules and capital gains discounts saved property investors nearly $7bn a year.
"Private renters, by contrast, receive very little support through the tax and welfare system, even though they make up nearly one in four households," the institute said.

The council reported that rents in the city had increased at twice the rate of inflation, making the residential population increasingly homogenous in age and income.
"If current market trends continue, virtually all low and many moderate income households will not be able to afford to live in our municipality," it said.

Workers such as receptionists, cleaners and hospitality staff were being forced to find housing an hour away from the city, with households on $100,000 a year even feeling the pinch.

In response, the council is proposing that 15% of new developments in urban growth areas and the city centre be set aside for affordable housing.